Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV24775, Date: 2025-02-03 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV24775 Hearing Date: February 3, 2025 Dept: 29
Johnson v.
University of Southern California
23STCV24775
Defendants’ Motion to Continue Trial
Tentative
The motion is granted.
Background
On
October 10, 2023, Jill Johnson (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against University
of Southern California (“USC”), Santa Monica Trapeze School, LLC, Joseph
Priester (“Priester”), and Does 1 through 50, asserting causes of action for (1)
negligence, (2) negligence hiring, retention, training, and supervision, and
(3) premises liability arising out of an incident on March 2, 2023, in which
Plaintiff alleges that she was injured during a class at a trapeze school.
On
November 17, 2023, USC and Priester filed an answer.
On
April 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) asserting the
same causes of action against all of the same defendants, plus Trapeze School
World Corporation (“TSWC”) and TSNY Los Angeles, LLC (“TSNY”).
On
May 28, 2024, USC and Priester filed an answer to the FAC, as well as a cross-complaint
against TSWC, TSNY, and Roes 1 through 50.
Also
on May 28, 2024, TSWC and TSNY Los Angeles, LLC filed an answer to the FAC.
On
June 7, 2024, TSWC and TSNY filed an answer to the cross-complaint, as well as
their own cross-complaint against USC, Priester, Plaintiff, and Roes 1 through
50.
USC
and Priester filed an answer to the cross-complaint on July 9, 2024; Plaintiff
filed an answer to the cross-complaint on August 23, 2024.
In
December 2024, three summary judgment motions were filed.
On
December 18, 2024, USC and Priester filed a motion for summary judgment set to
be heard on July 16, 2025.
On
December 19, 2024, TSWC and TSNY filed a motion for summary judgment set to be
heard on July 18, 2025.
On
December 20, 2024, USC and Priester filed a second motion for summary judgment set
to be heard on July 22, 2025.
Trial
is scheduled for April 8, 2025.
On January 6,
2025, USC, Priester, TSWC and TSNY (collectively “Defendants”) filed this motion to continue trial. Plaintiff filed an
opposition on January 21, 2025. Defendants filed a reply on January 27, 2025.
Legal Standard
Code of Civil Procedure section 128,
subdivision (a)(8), provides that the court has the power to amend and control
its process and orders so as to make them conform to law and justice. “The
power to determine when a continuance should be granted is within the
discretion of the trial court.” (Color-Vue, Inc. v. Abrams (1996) 44
Cal.App.4th 1599, 1603.) “A trial court has wide latitude in the matter of
calendar control including the granting or denying of continuances.” (Park
Motors, Inc. v. Cozens (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 12, 18.)
“To ensure the prompt disposition of civil
cases, the dates assigned for trial are firm.
All parties and their counsel must regard the date set for trial as
certain.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
3.1332(a).)
“Although continuances of trials are
disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own
merits.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
3.1332(c).) “The court may grant a
continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the
continuance.” (Ibid.) Circumstances that may support a finding of
good cause include:
“(1) The
unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness,
or other excusable circumstances;
(2) The
unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable
circumstances;
(3) The
unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable
circumstances;
(4) The
substitution of trial counsel, but only where there is an affirmative showing
that the substitution is required in the interests of justice;
(5) The addition
of a new party if: (A) The new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to
conduct discovery and prepare for trial; or (B) The other parties have not had
a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial in regard
to the new party's involvement in the case;
(6) A party's
excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material
evidence despite diligent efforts; or
(7) A
significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of
which the case is not ready for trial.”
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).)
“In ruling on a motion or application for
continuance, the court must consider all the facts and circumstances that are
relevant to the determination.” (Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d).) California
Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d) sets forth a non-exhaustive list of factors that
the court may consider:
“(1) The
proximity of the trial date;
(2) Whether
there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to
any party;
(3) The length
of the continuance requested;
(4) The
availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the
motion or application for a continuance;
(5) The
prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance;
(6) If the case
is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and
whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay;
(7) The court's
calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials;
(8) Whether
trial counsel is engaged in another trial;
(9) Whether all
parties have stipulated to a continuance;
(10) Whether the
interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the
matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and
(11) Any other
fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or
application.”
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d).)
“A trial court may not refuse to hear a summary judgment
motion filed within the time limits of section 437c.” (Sentry Ins. Co. v.
Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 526, 529; accord Cole v. Superior
Court (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 84, 88.)
Discussion
Defendants request a trial continuance so that their motions for summary judgment, set to be
heard on July 16, 18, and 22, 2025, can be heard before trial. (John Decl., ¶ 4;
Stockalper Decl., ¶ 3.)
A party who timely
files and serves a motion for summary judgment has a right to have the motion
heard before trial. (Cole v.
Superior Court (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 84, 88; Sentry Ins. Co.
v. Superior Court (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 526, 528.)
With trial here set for April 8, 2025, the last day for a motion
for summary judgment to be heard is Friday, March 7, 2025. 75 days before March
7, 2025 was Sunday, December 22, 2024. This was the last day for personal
service of a summary judgment motion for a case set for trial on April 8,
2025. Electronic service extends the
notice period by two court days; accordingly, for electronic service, the last
day for service was on December 19.
Plaintiff argues that that the summary judgment statute was
recently revised to require 81 days notice for a summary judgment motion, not
75. The amendment, however, had an
effective date of January 1, 2025; although this issue is not necessarily free
from doubt, the Court interprets the new statute to apply only as to the
motions filed after the effective date of January 1, 2025. As these motions were filed before that date,
the former version of the statute, requiring 75 days notice, applies.
Here, Plaintiff states that she was electronically served with
the first summary judgment motion on December 18; that she was electronically
served with the second summary judgment motion on December 19; and that she was
personally served with the third summary judgment motion on December 20. (Charlin Decl., ¶¶ 3-5.)
It thus appears that all three motions were timely filed and
served. The Court must hear these
motions prior to trial.
Good cause has been shown.
Accordingly, the motion to continue trial is granted.
Conclusion
The Court GRANTS the motion to continue trial
filed by USC, Joseph Priester, TSWC and TSNY.
The Court CONTINUES the trial to a date on or
after August 26, 2025. The Final Status
Conference and all discovery deadlines are reset based on the new trial date.
Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.